Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-07-03
THE CALICO MILLS.
onprR fNrERFp CONFIRMING RE-
PORT OF COMMISSIONERS AS
10 sALE.
The Contempt cases-Answsrs Rot suf-
feisntly nespensivs-
Continued.
Soon after the Cbancery Court opened
yesterday morning Judge Holiday delv-
cred the following opinion:


yesterday morning Judge Holiday deliv.
cred the following opinion;
OPINION or COURT.
This Court has received the greatest re-
spcct ana consideration at the hauds OF the
bar: and Il has endeayored 10 extend the
same. IL has never, knowingly, allowed
any intentional breach OF decorum 10 40
urpunisbed; and II intends to preserve It's
dignity la the highest sense Of the word
without going step beyond Its lawful
authority.
The argument OF Judge Joseph Chris
tisn upon reading The answer rendered by
the defendant on The last days session OF
this Count WAS OF doubtful meantng,
which The Court could not believe 10 be
Intentionally offensive; apd n intended to
have sny personal application 70 this Court
nscessiiated the severe punishment. The
Court carly In the argument called Judge
Christian to order and refused 70 allow him
to characterize the proceeding as re-
msrkabie case without precedent la the
annals OF the law. and at the close o! his
argument called his attention TO his re-
marks in order that he might have an op.
poriuniiy TO explain the meaning he In
tended 10 convey or leave the Court to draw
the ulhi hho oi'Nh~N N"NN'
these circumstances.
Judge Christian ihereupon declared that
be did not intend 10 make any personal sp'
plication of hts remarks to this Court; that
be did not intend 10 be in any manner dts
respectful; aud that II in the heat OF debate
ana in his zeal TO protect the interests OF
bis client he had used language which
could possibly admit OF such construction
II lad been wholly unintentional.
1he Court bcileued THIS disclaimer and
t1pionatl0n 10 be tr7te. and accepted the
same.
With these observations ] will discard
this branch 81 the case and proceed 10 con-
slider the rule against Mr.. Cannon.
The answer rendered To the Court does
not Iespond 10 the rule so far n II discusses
The question whether taking an appeal con-
stituies contempt. This question Is aoso'
lutely foreign 10 the present proceed
Inc. The idea that taking an ap
neal could be considered q contempt
OF the lower court Ia absurd. No sugges.
ton Of this character is contained in the
rule. The right to apply for an appeal l.
unquestioned and unquestiona5le; and
when the higher court or Judge grants an
order OF appeal, or appeal and supersedeas,
1t Is The plain duty OF the lower court to
respect the order In eUery particular. In
the CALICO cases the honorable judge OF
the Supreme Court who granted the appeal
refused 10 make the appeal supersedeas
unless the appellant executed bond IN the
penalty OF $4,000, which would have made
bin answerable for all damages upon an
affirmation OF the decree Of this Court. The
appellant elected, however, to take only an
sppeal without q suporsedeas, and gave
bond in the penalty OF $1,000 for The pay
nent OF costs. IL was therefore proper for
the commissioners OF the court TO proceed
With the sale Of the property, and Mr..
TODD, a parry TO the causes In which the
decree OF sale YVES entered. could not law
fully resist the officers OF this Court In the
execution OF the decree ordering sale OF
The Gallego property and the attorney
representing Mr.. Todd stood upon the
same footing.
The next question rai'ed by the rule in
this proceeding Is whether Mr.. Todd and
his counsel resisted and oOsiructed, or at
tempted 10 resist and obstruct, sale Of the
property.
am clearly OF opinion that reading the
protest mentioned In the rule was con-
tempt which IL was the duty of the Court
10 notice when called TO its attention by the
report Of the commissioners and the
question, How this rule shall be disposed
or depends upon whether the parties in
tended to alarm and drive away bidders
and thus depress and II possible prevent a
sale OF The property; or whether they, on
the other hand, truly feared and believed
Mr.. Todd would lose the rights which
might accrue TO him by reason OF the said
appeal II he remained silent In respect 10
The ialnswcd participated in the e 9idSip
open 10 serious objection. It is not re.
sponsiye 10 the rule so far as ii proceeds
upon the erroneous theory that this Court
in any possible way questions the right OF
Mr.. Todd to apply for and prosecute an
sppeai; Il is not c0uched IN decorous
terra for a proceeding OF this character;
and such portions OF the answer as look
towards purpose on the part OF the de-
PENDANT TO purge himself OF contempt are
so interviewer with statements aud express
sions which appear to negative this inten'
ton as TO render Il impossible to deter
mine whether the defendant intends by this
answer 10 purge himself OF all CONTEMPT.
For these reasons the Court declines
to allow this answer 10 be filed. This
opinion points out distinctly the real ques.
tions raised by the rule and 10 be answered
by the defendant. II he acted IN good
faith ard desires TO file an answer under
oath purgipG himself Of all contempt the
Court will give him an opportunity to do
&c, and will defer the entry OF an order in
this proceeding until =. NJ.
Upon reading this opinion 10 open court
Mir. Cannon asks that the matter be con-
tinued TO Tuesday next at III a. NJ, in or
der that he may have time to prepare such
an answe err, and the rule "a therefore en-
larged until the day and hour named.
ADDISON l.. HOLIDAY.
Mr.. CANNON.
Mr.. Edward Y. Cannon, who was pres
ent, at once rose and said he desired TO re-
marx with entire respect 10 the Court and
with great deliberaton, that after he had
submitted his oral statements, in respect
10 the rule IN question that the Court had
stated from the bench, as he (Mr. Can
non) had understood IL, the explanation he
had made was satisfactory in all re-
spects, and had inquired OF him whe-
tier he desired those remarks To be consld-
cred as forming part OF his answer as read
by counsel, TO which he (Mr. Cannon) bad
replied most PROFESSIONALLY that The state
ments were true, and were well known to
be 30 10 every one acquainted With the
matter before The rule was awarded, aud
that after the adjournment Of the court on
The following day he had, at the suggestion
of a common friend OF the Court
and himself, filed with the written
answer the printed report OF said remarks
taken from the Richmond Dispatch, aud
had asked that they be treated as part OF
the original answer, and that both be and his
associate, as well as their client, Mr.. Todd,
had supposed that this would be all that
could In any way be expected or required by
the Court. AT all events IL was going a.
far as self.respect and truth would enable
them 10 20, and that he Mr.. Cannon did
not believe that the Court would think oil
requiring anything further at their bands;
that In point OF fact he considered that
everything that he had said personally was
entirely respectful 10 the Court and con
tanned nothing that was intended to
be discourieeus or dersgatory to
his associate could admit consistently
with their conscientious belief that
sny sort OF contempt, either actual or tech
meal. had been committed, but that still II
The Court entertained that opinion they had
made oil disclaimer OF intention OF disre-
spect or disobedience TO the decree which
was proper TO be made, or could be right
fully required OF them, without coercing
from them an admission which was not
true. and which was not consistent with
their personal honor 10 make; but that II
would be physically impossible TO prepare
any sort OF paper by the hour indicated In
the opinion Of the Court.
The Court tbereupoa agreed 10 continue
the ease until Tuesday at IL O'Clock.
c. L. TODD, ESQ.
Mr.. Todd afterwards said before the
Judge that no dlsfespect, In purpose or in
fh...ohf had ~ m, Snf dad and that he s.raa